By Amulya Ganguli, IANS
It may be a coincidence, but both India and Pakistan have started talking in terms of reforming the traditional madrassa system of education. While Pakistan's initiative has understandably followed the tragic Lal Masjid episode, the Indian government's proposed measures are evidently the fallout of pressure from the Hindu communal outfits.
In both the countries, the belief that the madrassas have become hotbeds of terrorism is behind the latest moves. And the resistance to these initiatives for reform is also being offered in the two countries by the fundamentalist elements.
In India, the proposed legislation drafted by the National Commission for Minority Education is being opposed by the Jamaat-e-Islami, the Jamiat-ulema-e-Hind, a section of the Deoband school and others.
Of these, the Jamaat, with its links with the Muslim League, is known to be more fanatical than the Jamiat, which has had connections with the Congress from well before independence. However, the fact that both are against bringing the madrassas into the modern world shows the strength of the fundamentalist convictions which guide both, notwithstanding their political differences.
The fact that the case for reforming these religious seminaries has been made for a long time by a wide range of public opinion in India evidently has had no impact on these two organisations. What is more, it isn't only the fear that the madrassas breed terrorists that has influenced popular views. Instead, well-wishers of Muslims both inside and outside the community have started feeling with growing conviction that the traditional system of education given in these schools do not prepare the boys and girls for the exigencies of modern life.
Not surprisingly, the proposed legislation in India has focussed on the introduction of science, technology and computer courses in the curriculum. It is difficult to see what objection the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jamiat-Uleme-e-Hind can have to these subjects.
Yet the fact that they are against the legislation underlines their medieval world-view, providing yet more confirmation of the perception that organisations such as these, which claim to seek the welfare of Muslims, are in fact inflicting considerable harm on them.
It is possible that the move to bring all the madrassas under a central board is not to the liking of the Jamaat and the Jamiat. They probably believe that the step will be the thin edge of the wedge, which will enable the government to erode the autonomy of these institutions. The Rs.500 crore seed money mentioned in the bill for the reformed system is perhaps seen as a bait.
But it is also undeniable that letting the madrassas continue to lead an isolated existence will mean not only excluding their students from the mainstream but also denying young Muslims an opportunity to compete on equal terms with others for advanced learning and employment. The memorisation of religious texts at the expense of other subjects may have been useful in a bygone age, but not now.
It is unlikely that the majority of Muslims prefer this system. As the Rajinder Sachar committee report on the community points out, only four percent of Muslim children attend the madrassas. This means that an increasing number of Muslims belonging to the middle classes send their children to schools preferred by the other communities.
Evidently, the social barriers between the different groups are slowly breaking down. It may not be too cynical to suggest that it is precisely this elimination of dividing lines that have frightened the orthodox elements in the Muslim community to maintain the status quo where the madrassas are concerned.
The same desire to erect barriers can also been seen in the decision of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board to ask members of the community to solve their problems through the Shariat courts, bypassing the country's legal system.
While personal laws that are special for each community are still prevalent in India mainly in the matter of property rights, any attempt to extend them across the board can only encourage ghettoisation to the detriment of national integrity. Such a divisive fallout will be grist to the mill of the ultra-rightist elements in all the communities, who thrive on inflaming sectarian passions. While the majoritarian groups among the Hindus will press for a uniform civil code in order to erase the distinctiveness of the personal laws, mainly to needle the Muslims, their counterparts in the minority communities will try to erect more walls around themselves via their own civil and criminal codes.
Typically, while organisations like the Jamaat, the Jamiat and the Muslim Personal Law Board are so eager to play a divisive role, they have rarely exerted themselves to eradicate the besetting problems of the community posed by educational backwardness or the prevalence of anti-women bias, evident in the continuance of the triple talaq phenomenon.
There is little doubt, therefore, that the Muslims in India have not been well served by their backward-looking leaders. And the latter have been aided by a quiescent middle class that is reluctant to assert because it fears creating divisions within the community.
(Amulya Ganguli is a writer on current affairs. He can be reached at [email protected])